Inflated Service and Strategic Avoidance
Lindsey Graham referred to himself in his official biography and elsewhere as “an Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm veteran.” The truth came out in 1998, while then-Rep. Graham was working hard to impeach Bill Clinton. The Hill newspaper broke the story that he was calling himself a vet despite not being one. Graham insisted he had never explicitly said he served overseas or saw combat, but any reading of his official bio made it obvious that he wanted to people to think he did. And it worked! Almost all of the standard political biographies about Graham describe his military record inaccurately. Although Graham said he is not responsible for the inaccurate portrayal , he does acknowledge providing the information for his web site and other biographies that list him as a war veteran.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) military service during the Vietnam War have been floating around Washington for years and were reported in print at least as far back as two campaigns ago. A letter was found in the personal letters of U.S. Sen. John Sherman Cooper, a Republican from Kentucky. It was written to Maj. Gen. A. D. Surles, commanding general of Fort Knox. McConnell enlisted in March of 1967 and was abruptly discharged four months later for a minor medical condition, optic neurosis. During a time of war, one might appropriately presume the armed forces would want to minimize the number of departing soldiers.
Late House Speaker John Boehner graduated from high school during the Vietnam War in 1968. Then Boehner enlisted in the Navy. Because of a bad back he was honorably discharged after eight weeks. Boehner decided to attend college, though it took him seven years to graduate, working different jobs to pay his way through.
It was 1959 when Dick Cheney, then a student at Yale University, turned 18 and became eligible for the draft. Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 he was no longer eligible for the draft He had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.
The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre is not a true “gun man” in the classic sense. He doesn’t have a military background and he does not come from the rural heartland that generates much of the NRA’s core membership. So what is he? He is a professional bureaucrat that was brought up in Roanoke, Virginia and received an MA in government from Boston College. This suggests his passion isn’t guns or the Second Amendment; it’s the machinations of power. Just like the other tough guys, LaPierre figured out a way not to go into the military and avoid combat experience.
The New War Hawk Class: Advocates for Conflict Without Combat Credentials
As new geopolitical conflicts unfold—from Ukraine to the Middle East—a new generation of war hawks has emerged. Many of these figures are loudest in their calls for confrontation but, like their predecessors, have little or no military experience of their own.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) does break the mold somewhat. A Harvard-educated Army veteran, Cotton served in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, his record has often been used to bolster extremely aggressive foreign policy stances, including support for preemptive strikes on Iran and opposition to nearly all diplomatic efforts with adversaries. His hawkishness is not rooted in naiveté, but it remains deeply controversial.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) presents himself as a defender of American might and morality, often criticizing perceived weakness in U.S. foreign policy. Yet, he has no military background. His posture is often combative, especially in criticizing U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan or responses to China, but he has avoided personal service or sacrifice.
VP J.D. Vance (R-OH) served in the Marines, giving him military credibility, though he has more recently adopted an “America First” posture skeptical of foreign entanglements—especially aid to Ukraine—breaking with traditional neoconservatives.
Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL), a Green Beret and current Army National Guard colonel, is among the few members of Congress with active military experience who also espouses hawkish views, especially regarding China and terrorism.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), a former Navy SEAL who lost an eye in combat, strongly supports an interventionist U.S. military role globally, and often targets isolationist sentiment within his own party. Unlike most hawks, Crenshaw’s advocacy stems from direct battlefield experience.
On the other hand, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) have both been vocally in favor of projecting U.S. power—particularly against China and in the Americas—despite no service of their own.
Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, another outspoken advocate for aggressive U.S. military posture (especially against Iran and China), has no military service. Her foreign policy positions, especially during the 2024 presidential primaries, were often indistinguishable from those of Cold War-era neoconservatives.
Ron DeSantis, Florida governor and former presidential candidate, served as a Navy JAG officer with deployment to Iraq, giving him some military legitimacy. However, his political messaging is often far more combative than his operational role ever was.
Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host turned geopolitical influencer, is another important figure in shaping modern war discourse. While often associated with anti-interventionist rhetoric, Carlson has selectively amplified hawkish stances, especially when they intersect with culture war narratives or China skepticism. He has no military background. While interviewing Ted Cruz recently he did pushed back against the bombing of Iran with bunker busters.
President Trump, having avoided the draft with claims of bone spurs and while campaigning as the peace president. Committed war crimes by assassinating Gen. Solomani, bombed Iran with bunker bombs, and threatened nuclear war on social media on several occasions
The Broader Pattern
These cases reveal a recurring pattern in American politics: the gap between public persona and private reality when it comes to military service. During the Vietnam era, many young men found ways to avoid service, which was legally permissible but politically problematic in later careers. The challenge for politicians has been how to address this history honestly while still appealing to voters who value military service.
The politicization of military service has only intensified in recent decades. Veterans running for office often emphasize their service records, while those without military backgrounds must navigate carefully to avoid appearing weak on defense issues. This dynamic has created incentives for some politicians to exaggerate their military connections or to present their service in misleading ways.
What's particularly striking is how these military service issues have affected politicians across the political spectrum. Republicans, who typically champion strong defense policies, have been especially vulnerable to criticism when their own service records don't match their hawkish rhetoric. The contradiction between advocating for military action while having avoided service themselves has become a persistent source of political vulnerability.
The cases examined here illustrate how military service—or the lack thereof—continues to shape American political discourse. Whether it's misrepresenting the nature of one's service, receiving convenient medical discharges, or simply avoiding service altogether, these stories reflect the complex relationship between personal history and political ambition in modern America.
Conclusion:
A clear pattern emerges among many American war hawks: while championing military interventions, they themselves have either avoided service or crafted public images that distort their records. Whether it's through deferments, medical discharges, or biographical sleight of hand, these figures often position themselves as defenders of American might without bearing the personal risks that come with warfare.
As the U.S. grapples with new global conflicts and an evolving military posture, the question remains: who pays the price when the loudest voices for war have never worn the uniform?